RX1 going back

I should have know the AF would disappoint. I've briefly owned the Fuji X100, NEX-7, and tried a friend's RX100. All have excellent image quality and outstanding features, but the one thing they all lack is an AF to keep up with toddlers. I was hoping the RX1 would be the one to replace my DSLRs, but the gap between CF and PDAF is too great. Maybe the OM-D? Or maybe wait until CF progresses in the next NEX iteration(s) or the RX2.

and don't get a OMD either, expecting miracles with moving subjects.

Even a lowly PDAF DSLR will be better for toddlers. I know, I speak from experience, having had both the OMD and the RX1. However, I never got either of these two for primarily photographing my son (though I'm able to get keepers most of the time), as I'm using my D800 or A99 for those challenging shots. I actually don't care much for the A99, as it's AF, though capable and decent at tracking, is severely limited to the central 1/3 of the sensor. The only reason I got the A99 were the yummy CZ lenses (135 and 24-70).

why is everyone always complaining about they cant freeze toddler shots with there camera.

really..

what mode are you shooting in?

shooting in Shutter priority or man setting with the iso set to say 400 or even auto iso should easily freeze them in motion.

and especially if you pan the camera in the direction that there going.

it certainly isn't the cameras fault..

you just need to exhaust all the different shooting settings first.

It's not the stopping of motion that's problematic; focus acquisition and tracking is.

The moment I can predict in which direction my son will run next, I will start guessing the winning lottery numbers.

No one says it's the camera's fault. It's just that for fast-moving subjects, any CDAF camera will be less suited than a less-expensive PDAF one. In other words, managing expectations; knowing which camera is best for what.

I agree, being familiar with the camera operation is a must.

As noted in the first response to you, it's about the initial locking of focus that is not fast enough for children action. My son can bob his head and inch this way or that way and the RX1 will lock focus just as my son moves a bit causing me to miss focus even with a shutter speed of 1/2000. Shutter speed isn't the issue. Our settings aren't the issue. AF is the issue. For much shooting, it's fine. But it is limited.

None,  for your requirements, will AF as quickly as the DSLR you already own.

If compactness is your main reason for looking at another camera, then why don't you stay with DSLR  you already have, look for a smaller more compact model, and/or get a faster lens?

As  realzed,  you will never be happy with the AF of cameras you have either tried or under consideration.

But if you must keep looking, good luck with your journey.

Regards.

As a former DSLR shooter , I can tell you there's no compact cameras  that'll  do your style of shooting. so far only Pro DSLR's like Nikon D3s, Canon 4D, etc,  are capable of tracking fast moving target. Sorry for disappointing you.

Hmm... I'll dissent from what the others are saying here -- I do think the OMD is fast enough to focus on a toddler in motion. Certainly not continuous AF, but I don't think you'll have problems with AF-S even indoors. Especially if you get something wide like the 14mm f.2.5.

Back to the RX1: I'm having better success with AF on my kids now that I'm stopping down to f/4. I just didn't appreciate how shallow DOF is with f/2 on a full frame. Have you tried stopping down a bit?

--
Marc A. Garrett
http://flickr.com/photos/since1968/

I don't know if you tried asking first, and pardon the hindsight, but I don't think anyone on this forum would have encouraged you to get A CDAF focusing camera--especially full frame--to capture active children.

Such an expensive purchase deserves a bit more research up front, even if you can return the camera.

My belief is that the RX1 comes awfully close to being what it claims to be, with two exceptions. One is merely the over-exuberant claim of "nearly perfect circle" apertures, which was kind of overdone (and some of us new better, I think).

The other is possibly far more egregious. This camera doesn't produce anything close to 14 bit output. It has all the dynamic range, and the 11 bits worth of tones are a darn good 11 bits, but it isn't 14 bit raw files. That won't matter for most "typical" uses of raw, and have yet to definitively demonstrate how it matters for certain editing scenarios. Anyone want to lend me a D600 to test an extreme raw latititude comparison?

It has CDAF & PDAF

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-nex-6/

Thanks, I didn't realize the 6 had both, I will check it out. I am probably asking too much at this point and time out of a compact camera. The RX1 was/is as close as I could have gotten to what I am looking for in a DSLR replacement, full frame, compact, excellent IQ, and fast lens. As soon as the RX1 has PDAF or like speed/accuracy, I'm all over it.

PDAF is not just a technological checkbox you can check off and get better performing autofocus. There is a big difference between traditional SLR PDAF and on sensor implementations, though they are the same in concept.

PDAF/CDAF hybrid in mirrorless is still an immature technology, and in many cases of limited utility. (It also potentially compromises IQ vs. a sensor without phase detection pixels, but just as each pixel does not truly have red green and blue recorded--Foveon sensors excepted--there are now some additional tiny pixels in your image whose values must be guessed.)

The Nikon 1 series is reputed to have a successful implementation--in good lighting conditions--, but it is very likely that there are a number of other contributing factors (smaller lenses, deeper DOF, etc.)

So please don't take today's mirrorless PDAF systems for more than the incremental improvement (and only in some lighting conditions) that it is.

SLRs are DEAD; DEAD I tell you.

Interesting response to what was a very neutral suggestion with link to information.  Your "suggestion" of the Nikon 1 adds another option into the mix

A phase detect AF DSLR, combined with halfway decent light, will easily capture kids in motion.

Cheers

Rich
ice nine photography
Take only photographs, leave only footprints.

Maybe in the future, but not now. Need proof? Watch a football game on TV. Take a look at all those lovely, big white lenses on the sidelines. Yeah, it will be a while until DSLR's are dead.

So there!

Cheers

Rich
ice nine photography
Take only photographs, leave only footprints.

I'm beginning to like this guy 

Rich
ice nine photography
Take only photographs, leave only footprints.

I don't think so.

Some people here are so obsessed about the camera that thay became deaf to every good advise that may help them to avoid an expensive mistake.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

Rich,

As much as your statement it true, we come from a school that didn't have this luxury. I took photos of my toddlers in motion 40 years ago with a film camera with manual focus and believe me, I have wonderful memories of action shots of my kids. Sport photographers used the same principle and did good.

Almost every modern camera has much better and faster focusing facilities than older cameras and almost every camera is perfectly capable of capturing kids in motion, if the person behind it knows what he is doind.

Happy new year,

Moti

--

http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

Well, I'm of the opinion you can read and listen to several others, but you never really know if something is going to meet your needs until you try it. I could have asked, and I did read several reviews, but the answer was never clear for me, so I bought it, big deal. I obviously knew the risk, and maybe I was hoping the other attributes would sway me to overlook the AF if that was the only weak point. It didn't, I bought it, I tried it, it is going back. The issue is I am comparing 10 years of DSLR experience against it, which is pretty tough to overcome. Great camera, fantastic image quality, awesome lens, mediocre AF. Maybe the RX2 will have the NEX-6 hybrid AF tech built in, that would be something!